Niccolò Paganini’s Cannone violin and David Laurie’s “Canon” violin; some considerations Nicholas Sackman © 2018/March 2021 Within the Palazzo Tursi, in Genoa, Italy, is exhibited a Guarneri del Gesù violin. The information card within the glass display-cabinet states: Bartolomeo Giuseppe Guarneri detto “del Gesù” Violino detto il “Cannone”, Cremona 1743, appartenuto a Niccolò Paganini Legato alla città di Genova da Niccolò Paganini e consegnato dagli eredi al Comune di Genova al 4 luglio 1851 Genova, Galleria di Palazzo Bianco, inv. PB820 This information is translated, on the same information card, as: Bartolomeo Giuseppe Guarneri known as “del Gesù” Violin called the “Cannone”, Cremona 1743, owned by Niccolò Paganini Bequeathed to the City of Genoa by Niccolò Paganini and given by his heirs1 to the City of Genoa on July 4th 1851 Genoa, Galleria di Palazzo Bianco, PB 820 In a brochure published by the Comune di Genova in 2003 – Violini a Genova – it is stated: Seconda una precisa disposizione contenuta nel testamento redatto a Genova nel 1837, il “Cannone” venne legato “alla città di Genova perché fosse perpetuamente conservato”. This text is translated in the brochure as: According to a definite disposition in Paganini’s will made in 1837 in Genoa, the “Cannone” was left to “the City of Genoa to be preserved forever”.2 The first part of the following historical study contrasts the certainty of identification of Paganini’s Cannone violin (as above) with the uncertainties which surround the events which took place prior to 1840 (when Paganini died) as well as those which took place between 1840 and 1851 (when a Guarneri violin was handed over to the Genoese authorities by Niccolò’s only son, Achille[s] Cyrus Alessandro). The second part of the study examines the curious emergence of a “Canon” violin in London in the latter part of the nineteenth century and how two historical narratives may be intertwined. ***** 1 Niccolò Paganini had only one heir – his son Achille[s] (1825-1895). 2 The brochure, which is not paginated, is hereafter cited as Violini a Genova. Full identification of all quoted sources will be found in the Bibliography at the end of this study. Paganini, in his Will, does not mention a Cannone violin; his bequest states, simply: Lego il mio violino alla Città di Genova onde sia perpetuamente conservato. The reason for the alternative wording published in the Violini a Genova brochure is unknown. Paganini’s ‘Il Cannone’ violin and David Laurie’s ‘Canon’ violin; some considerations Part 1 In the first decades of the nineteenth century there were very few violin aficionados, practitioners, or dealers who possessed anything more than the vaguest understanding of the generational relationships within the Guarneri families of Cremona. No researches had been carried out in church archives and/or parish records and nothing had been published. Even in 1855 Jean-Baptiste Vuillaume was chiding the curate at the cathedral in Cremona: ‘You give me very few details about J. Guarnerius del Gesu whose instruments are so highly regarded.’3 Undoubtedly the best-informed investigator was Il Conte Ignazio Alessandro Cozio di Salabue (1755- 1840). In a lengthy document written in 1816 Count Cozio outlined his knowledge of the history of violin-making in northern Italy, charting (as far as he knew) the identity and chronology of various violin makers who represented different schools of practice.4 Even though the Count’s historical knowledge was more extensive and more reliable than that which was professed by any of his contemporaries he still approached the writing of his document with circumspection and humility: Memorie per servire alla disertazione sulla conoscenza delli instromenti a corda delle diverse scuole italiane, e specialmente de più celebri autori di Cremona, e della sua scuola, che possono essere di qualche utilità a chi desiderasse di formarsi una racolta de medesimi, e per indirizzo a quelli che volessero imparare per teorica una tale arte che pur troppo è d’assai declinata, tanto più nella sostanza [...].5 [These] commentaries are a contribution towards the understanding of string instruments of the various Italian schools, especially the most celebrated authors of Cremona, and their school, which may be of some use to those who wish to form a collection [of instruments] of these people, as well as guiding those who wish to learn about the theory of an art which for too long has been in great decline, even more in its substance […].6 Count Cozio provides an overview of the Brescian school of lutherie, followed by an overview of the Cremonese school. At the start of this latter section Cozio writes about the Autori di prima classe (these being the Amatis, Antonio Stradivari, and Francesco Stradivari) and then moves on to the Autori di seconda classe, beginning with Andrea Guarneri (1623-1698) who is followed by Andrea’s youngest son, Giuseppe Giovanni Battista Guarneri filius Andreæ (1666-1740); the latter is followed by Francesco Rugieri, Pietro Guarneri (of Mantua), and then another Giuseppe Guarneri: Il Guarnerio Giuseppe, che qualche volta ne biglietti si qualificò per nipote d’Andrea ma che mai fece menzione di suo padre ... Giuseppe Guarneri, who sometimes on his labels identifies himself as the nipote7 of Andrea but makes no mention of his father. Questo Giuseppe Guarnerio, per distinguerlo dall altro Giuseppe Guarnerio figlio d’Andrea, che sarebbe stato cugino germano del primo, si denomina del Gesù [...]. This Giuseppe Guarneri, to distinguish himself from the other Giuseppe Guarneri, son of Andrea, who would have been the cousin of the first-named, was known as del Gesù because in the 3 Bonetti et al., p. 103; present author’s translation. 4 All Cozio’s documents are archived at the Biblioteca Statale di Cremona. 5 Biblioteca Statale di Cremona [BSCr], Libreria Civica [LC], ms. Cozio 1. 6 i.e. the instruments themselves were declining in quality. 7 The Guarneri labels mentioned by Count Cozio used the Latin word nepos which can mean ‘grandson’, ‘granddaughter’, or ‘nephew’. In Giuseppe Baretti’s Dizionario delle Lingue Italiana, ed Inglese (Venice, 1795) nipote is translated as ‘nephew, niece’; in the 1820 edition of his dictionary Baretti gives the same translation but for nepote gives ‘nephew, grandchild’. The ambiguity of nepos/nipote/nepote bedevils the understanding of the label-texts found inside some Guarneri instruments. 2 Paganini’s ‘Il Cannone’ violin and David Laurie’s ‘Canon’ violin; some considerations majority of the labels found in his violins, especially the most ordinary, they have the following cipher ‘IHS’ [Count Cozio draws a four-pointed cross above the three letters].8 Count Cozio’s understanding, therefore, was that Giuseppe filius Andreæ and Giuseppe del Gesù were cousins, and the latter was Andrea Guarneri’s nephew. In a subsequent manuscript Count Cozio re- visits his Guarneri information, discusses the work of Andrea Guarneri in more detail, and then moves on to Giuseppe Giovanni Battista Guarneri filius Andreæ: Guarnerio Giuseppe figlio d’Andrea non si crede abbia lavorato molti anni, poichè finora non risultano dal più volte cittato registro che si siano veduti biglietti ne suoi instromenti posteriori al 1712. Giuseppe Guarneri, son of Andrea, is not thought to have worked for many years, because in the oft-cited register [Count Cozio’s register of instruments] there are none of his instrument labels which are dated later than 1712. Ignorasi ancora è l’epoca del suo decesso, e se abbia lasciato prole, però non si ritrovano instromenti con biglietti d’alcun suo discendente. We still do not know when he [Giuseppe filius Andreæ] died and if he left behind any offspring; no instruments have been found with labels of any of his [male] descendants [i.e. labels with ‘filius Ioſeph’ or, less likely, ‘figlio Giuseppe’]. Vi fù bensì in Cremona altro Giuseppe Guarneri il quale per diversi anni del suo primiero lavorare, cioè dal 1727 circa al 1735 inclusive, che ne biglietti apposti a suoi stromenti si qualificò nipote di Andrea avendo tacciuto quello del padre forsi perchè non fabricante li violini.9 It is certain that there was in Cremona another Giuseppe Guarneri who, for several years at the start of his career – thus from about 1727 to 1735 inclusive – indicated on the labels of his instruments that he was the nephew of Andrea. His father is not mentioned, perhaps because he did not make violins. Since Count Cozio knew that Giuseppe filius Andreæ was a violin-maker and therefore could not have been the father who ‘did not make violins’ he could only conclude that the father of ‘another Giuseppe Guarneri’ had to be a brother to Andrea. Andrea Guarneri certainly had a brother, namely Giovanni Battista Guarneri (?-c.1693), who is identified in the first version of Andrea’s Will (15 June 1687) and also, posthumously, in the final version (28 October 1694).10 However, the resultant chronological problem (assuming that the ‘nephew of Andrea’ was Giuseppe del Gesù and that Giuseppe’s father was Giovanni Battista) is that with the latter dying prior to 1694 the currently- accepted date for the birth of del Gesù – 21 August 1698 – cannot be sustained. Count Cozio would undoubtedly have wished to know that Giuseppe filius Andreæ was the father of six children (three girls, three boys) one of whom – the last born male – was he who would subsequently be known as del Gesù. Thus the Latin words Andreæ nepos – as found on the labels inside some ‘Guarneri’ violins – more likely indicated ‘grandson of Andrea’, but, if it was Giuseppe del Gesù who made these instruments, this label-text leaves unexplained del Gesù’s lack of acknowledgment of his own father. The Hill brothers, in their 1931 study, The Violin-Makers of the Guarneri family (1626-1762), acknowledge the translation of nepos as ‘nephew’ but reject all Andreæ nepos labels: 8 BSCr, LC, ms.